Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
They are the reason the government can collect taxes, excizes and duties.Then why is it in the constitution?You fail to consider the correct answer:I see where you are going and without researching it further I don't know the answer. It perhaps has something to do with the fact that they wanted or needed to be very clear on what could be done regarding military operations.
That neither the 'common defense' nor the 'general welfare' clauses, in and of themselves, grant any power to Congress.
I'm a little fuzzy on this...but wasn't the military funded without using income tax in the beginning?Which semi-colon do you mean?
After the first one, taxes are not mentioned again...only duties, imposts, and excises are.
No mention there of taxes.
Then the subsequent statements would seem to refer to only duties, imposts and excises.
Interesting point. But given the enumerated powers I have to believe it included taxes. After all one of the enumerated powers is the establishment of a navy for example. How can that be funded using only a duty, impost or excise? The creation of a navy would have to be funded through a tax I think.
Ravi was busy watching a survivor re-run. Can you repeat the question?They are the reason the government can collect taxes, excizes and duties.Then why is it in the constitution?You fail to consider the correct answer:
That neither the 'common defense' nor the 'general welfare' clauses, in and of themselves, grant any power to Congress.
Of course you still havn't explained how giving "some people in the united states other peoples money" provides for the "general welfare of the united states". All it does is detract from the welfare of the general population to provide for the welfare of specific others. You cannot provide for the "general welfare" by taking from most of them to give to few of them.
the 16th amendment gives congress the power to tax profits, not income. just sayin. there is no law on the books for anyone to pay income tax.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
I write, I contact my congressmen and Senators, I contact my state legislature, I speak to other people... eveything I legally can do that might one day make a difference.Courts have been wrong before, they will be wrong again. Their opinions are not neccesarily "right", what they are is current law whether right or not. And I don't see anyone arguing that any of these programs aren't current law, what I see is people arguing that if we apply the constitution according to what it says... they shouldn't be.
So what are you doing about it besides making your voice count at USMB?
In order for welfare to be general, it cannot create winners and losers. Most of what has been done in the mf general welfare by Congress does not accomplish this.
I think where a lot of liberals go wrong the most is in the belief that because conservatives do not support the federal government spending money on a thing it's not authorized to spend money on, you think we oppose any spending of the same type. I fully support my state taxing me (and everyone else in the damned state) to feed the hungry and house the homless (and for gods ske clothe the clothesless--- have you seen how fat poor people are---yuk). I may differ from you on the type and level of support, but my state is empowered constitutionally by the people to do so, and I wouldn't argue at all that its not. The states did not cede this authority to the fedral government, and the federal government has no such authority. Where the authority does not exist the ability does not exist.I write, I contact my congressmen and Senators, I contact my state legislature, I speak to other people... eveything I legally can do that might one day make a difference.So what are you doing about it besides making your voice count at USMB?
Good answer.
I think where a lot of liberals go wrong the most is in the belief that because conservatives do not support the federal government spending money on a thing it's not authorized to spend money on, you think we oppose any spending of the same type. I fully support my state taxing me (and everyone else in the damned state) to feed the hungry and house the homless (and for gods ske clothe the clothesless--- have you seen how fat poor people are---yuk). I may differ from you on the type and level of support, but my state is empowered constitutionally by the people to do so, and I wouldn't argue at all that its not. The states did not cede this authority to the fedral government, and the federal government has no such authority. Where the authority does not exist the ability does not exist.I write, I contact my congressmen and Senators, I contact my state legislature, I speak to other people... eveything I legally can do that might one day make a difference.
Good answer.
The userpation began in the progressive era, only by passing the 16th and 17th amendments did it become possible for the federal government to userp state authorities. I disagree on your contention of it making no difference, The GOP does not generally support creating new programs the constitution does not authorize. Thats not to say they'll scrap the old ones, b ut at least they won't further the userpation. Are their exceptions to that rule? Yeah, but they're few and far between. And, this new class of republicans may actually begin to reverse some of it... one can hope.I think where a lot of liberals go wrong the most is in the belief that because conservatives do not support the federal government spending money on a thing it's not authorized to spend money on, you think we oppose any spending of the same type. I fully support my state taxing me (and everyone else in the damned state) to feed the hungry and house the homless (and for gods ske clothe the clothesless--- have you seen how fat poor people are---yuk). I may differ from you on the type and level of support, but my state is empowered constitutionally by the people to do so, and I wouldn't argue at all that its not. The states did not cede this authority to the fedral government, and the federal government has no such authority. Where the authority does not exist the ability does not exist.Good answer.
I understand your acadmenic argument, and even agree with you more than I disagree. In fact, I think our entire tax burden is ass-backwards. Had we done it the way I think it should have been done, I'd be paying most of my taxes at the state and local level rather than the federal level.
Regardless, we can agree or disagree all day long about what the federal government is legally empowered by the Constititution to do. But the fact remains they've already seized authority you claim they have no right to and will likely continue to do so. And voting republican rather democrat ain't gonna make one bit of difference IMO.
I have to admit that you've made some good points and I will have to rethink my position.So that Congress has the power to tax in order to generate revenue, and the power to spend the revenue it collects.Then why is it in the constitution?You fail to consider the correct answer:
That neither the 'common defense' nor the 'general welfare' clauses, in and of themselves, grant any power to Congress.
The powers that 'provide for the common defense' are found in the remainder of the section.
The powers that 'provide for the general welfare' are found in the remainder of the section.
If your argument were sound, the only clauses in the entire section would be the first and last.
Answered previously. Not my problem that you can't read for comprehension.They are the reason the government can collect taxes, excizes and duties.Then why is it in the constitution?You fail to consider the correct answer:
That neither the 'common defense' nor the 'general welfare' clauses, in and of themselves, grant any power to Congress.
Of course you still havn't explained how giving "some people in the united states other peoples money" provides for the "general welfare of the united states". All it does is detract from the welfare of the general population to provide for the welfare of specific others. You cannot provide for the "general welfare" by taking from most of them to give to few of them.
from Article I section 8 of the US Constitution:
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and General Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States"
I don't see any explicit limit placed on what CAN or CANNOT be considered providing for the general welfare of the United States. However, I've seen several people here lately argue that there is only ONE acceptable definition of 'general welfare' (conveniently their own) and it excludes anything that even slightly constitutes a redistribution of wealth.
I understand philosophical and ideological opposition to wealth redistribution. But I don't understand constitutional opposition.
How do you interpret the General Welfare clause?
I have to admit that you've made some good points and I will have to rethink my position.So that Congress has the power to tax in order to generate revenue, and the power to spend the revenue it collects.Then why is it in the constitution?
The powers that 'provide for the common defense' are found in the remainder of the section.
The powers that 'provide for the general welfare' are found in the remainder of the section.
If your argument were sound, the only clauses in the entire section would be the first and last.
the GENERAL WELFARE mention is an INTRODUCTION AS OUTLINED BY MADISON IN FEDERALIST 41 !!!!!!!!!!!!! For fucks sake.
I have to admit that you've made some good points and I will have to rethink my position.So that Congress has the power to tax in order to generate revenue, and the power to spend the revenue it collects.Then why is it in the constitution?
The powers that 'provide for the common defense' are found in the remainder of the section.
The powers that 'provide for the general welfare' are found in the remainder of the section.
If your argument were sound, the only clauses in the entire section would be the first and last.
In a more remote stage, the imports may consist in a considerable part of raw materials, which will be wrought into articles for exportation, and will, therefore, require rather the encouragement of bounties, than to be loaded with discouraging duties. A system of government, meant for duration, ought to contemplate these revolutions, and be able to accommodate itself to them. Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,'' amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction. Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare.
''But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars.
But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter. The objection here is the more extraordinary, as it appears that the language used by the convention is a copy from the articles of Confederation. The objects of the Union among the States, as described in article third, are "their common defense, security of their liberties, and mutual and general welfare. '' The terms of article eighth are still more identical: "All charges of war and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury,'' etc. A similar language again occurs in article ninth. Construe either of these articles by the rules which would justify the construction put on the new Constitution, and they vest in the existing Congress a power to legislate in all cases whatsoever.
But what would have been thought of that assembly, if, attaching themselves to these general expressions, and disregarding the specifications which ascertain and limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing for the common defense and general welfare? I appeal to the objectors themselves, whether they would in that case have employed the same reasoning in justification of Congress as they now make use of against the convention. How difficult it is for error to escape its own condemnation!
